Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/manishiitg/coding-agent-loopWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/manishiitg/coding-agent-loop/review-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/manishiitg/coding-agent-loop/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/manishiitg/coding-agent-loop/review-code/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/manishiitg/coding-agent-loop/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/manishiitg/coding-agent-loop/review-code.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00000 | $0.00572 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00229 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00114 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
review-code scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 26d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
Call get_workflow_command_guidance(kind="design-plan", focus="Architecture focus: inspect saved scripts against their current step objectives, input/output contracts, and relevant retained behavior. Propose improvements without applying them.
Load and apply read_skill(skills=[{"name":"builder-reference","path":"references/code-authoring.md"}]), then load and apply read_skill(skills=[{"name":"builder-reference","path":"references/scripted.md"}]) as review references; their authoring and execution instructions do not grant mutation or producing-run authority in this review.
Check source-layout migration consistency: resolve canonical code paths from workflow.json.code_layout_version. Version 1 uses code//main.py directly and shared imports rooted at WORKFLOW_CODE_ROOT, without execution-copy or copy-back assumptions. Absent/zero uses the supported legacy learnings//main.py layout. Inspect relevant active code, imports, and plan references for missing canonical files or stale layout assumptions; historical retained copies and an intentionally legacy layout are not defects. Do not migrate implicitly or infer the version from folder existence.
For a legacy scripted workflow, assess and normally propose migration to code/ using the Deliberate migration to code/ section of code-authoring.md. Include the complete source/helper/metadata scope, supported manifest-switch mechanism or its absence, rollback boundary, and focused runtime tests. Treat this as a maintenance improvement, not a bug; reuse existing proposals and respect explicit deferrals. If migration and testing are already authorized, preserve that scope for the implementation handoff rather than asking again. This review remains read-only.
For parameterized scripts, compare the declared script_parameters keys, types, required values, defaults, and enums with main.py parsing of STEP_PARAMS_JSON and its actual use of those values. Inspect relevant callers: execute_step supplies script_parameters; call_scripted_sub_agent supplies parameters. Check optional-value handling, hardcoded per-call values, undeclared inputs, and conflicting CLI/free-form parameter paths. Keep context_dependencies as positional sys.argv inputs, workflow configuration in VAR_*, and secrets out of the public parameter object. Parameterization is optional; recommend it only when repeated code rewriting or duplicated scripts shows a useful need.
Use current source and relevant retained evidence; do not launch a producing run merely to complete this review. Report material code/contract drift; skip unrelated operations checks and harmless recovered tool failures. Persist findings for a later /pulse-fixer; do not apply changes in this review.
{{context}}") and follow the returned instructions verbatim. Pass run_folder as the workflow's currently selected run folder when one is selected; otherwise omit it. Treat focus as the conversation/request context that appeared before the slash command, including the user's recent constraints and intent. The tool returns the canonical guided-flow text for this command — do not paraphrase or skip its steps.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 26d ago First seen · 16 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 0c92f6404bd3
review-code is a command published in the GitHub repository manishiitg/coding-agent-loop (13 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 572 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-21.
Other commands, from other repositories
proof-capture
Capture PR-ready proof artifacts for a feature, with an attested fail-closed controller in strict mode.
align
Context-aware alignment. In plan mode it audits the active plan and folds the amendments in. Otherwise it reviews the branch, a named branch, or a pull request against Ion's principles, authors a fix plan, and after approval implements and commits the fixes.
resolve-dependabot-prs
Triage open Dependabot PRs, return a quick risk/action summary table, then enter planning mode with an ordered rebase→merge→follow-up→resume resolution plan.
go
You MUST start your FIRST response with this exact agent activation line.
secure-coding
You MUST start your FIRST response with this exact agent activation line.
staff
You MUST start your FIRST response with this exact agent activation line.